Compensation must align proportionately with the actual damages incurred, and excessive punitive measures without rational basis contravene principles of justice.

ORDER

PER HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PA ND YA. MEMBER

1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the State Commission, Lucknow in FA. No 257 of 2023, whereby State Commission dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner. The brief facts of the case, as per the petitioner/appellant, are that respondent/complainant approached the appellant/OP-1&2 seeking financial assistance for the purchase of a truck. Appellant sanctioned a loan of Rs. 15,93,385/-. A formal loan agreement was executed wherein the respondent committed to repay the loan amount in 48 monthly installments of Rs.43,503/-. However, respondent defaulted in her repayment obligations, making only two installments on time while the majority of installments were delayed, leading to the imposition of late payment charges and penal interest. Despite repeated reminders and notices issued by the appellant, respondent failed to regularize the outstanding dues. Respondent's cheque dated 15.03.2020 was dishonored due to insufficient funds, thereby confirming their habit of regularly defaulting in payment of installments.

2. In accordance with the terms of the loan agreement including the relevant RBI guidelines and after serving due notice, the appellant repossessed the vehicle. The repossessed vehicle was then sold after proper notice. Even though the repossession of the vehicle was lawful and many opportunities were provided to the respondent still he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum and District Forum without properly appreciating the evidence and documents on record, erroneously allowed the complaint vide its order dated 22.09.2022 by directing appellant to pay Rs. 15,60,038/- to the Respondent within 60 days, along with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaint until realization, holding the appellant guilty of deficiency in service. Order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the District Forum, Mainpuri is reproduced below:GFEDCBA

“10. On perusing the evidence in this regard, it is found that according to the registration certificate, the price of the truck in question was Rs 18,68,501/-. OTT amount of Rs 4,1141- was deposited in the ARTO office, from 15.01.2020 to 14.01.2021, the complainant paid Rs 49,305/- to the insurance company for insurance and paid Rs 47,0001- as registration charge. Thus this amount comes to Rs. 19,68.920/-. According to the mini statement of the complainant's account provided by the opposite parties, the opposite parties paid Rs 15,64,9261 - to the complainant as loan. The opposite parties gave the seizure form to the complainant, in that, the opposite parties have not informed that for how much rupees they have sold the truck or what was its price at the time of taking possession. In the final call letter dated 22.01.2020 which the opposite parties gave to the complainant, Rs. 13,24,905/- is shown as outstanding on the complainant. According to this final call letter, according to the account statement given by the opposite parties of the complainant, it is written that the principal amount of Rs.4,46,044/- and Rs.2,50,004/- as interest is to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. In this account statement, at the back, it is mentioned that only 07 instalments have been paid till 28.05.2019, the details of payment of further instalments are not given in it.

11. In the notice given by the complainant to the opposite parties on 03.06.2020, she has written that she gave Rs 4,46,500/ - in cash to the opposite parties while purchasing the tr